Yes, not to mention the fact that Chinese EVs can't be sold here... protectionism for weak American companies that can't compete globally. We've gone from an automotive superpower and the land of Henry Ford to the government propping up automakers and depriving Americans of free choice. If Chinese cars would actually be allowed to sold here they would sell like Toyota Camrys.
Until very recently, tariffs on American cars sold in China were much higher than vice-versa. The new US tariffs were an attempt to even the playing field.
I think most people would agree that no tariffs would be good, but China is more protectionist than any other major economy, including recent changes in US policy.
Yes, but China has always been straightforward in that they believe in protectionism. It's part of their system.
In contrast, in the West (at least until a few years ago), we have been fed the discourse that free market without protectionism is the best model, and protectionist countries are sabotaging themselves. And I don't know how it was in the US, but in the EU this caused hardship to many people. Entire countries pretty much sacrificed whole industries to the free market gods, because it was more efficient to bring the merchandise from elsewhere. Opponents who were defending their livelihood were framed as reactionaries that were opposing +X% GDP gains or didn't want "free competition" (often against products with unbeatable prices due to being made in countries with totally different rules and labor standards).
Now it seems that the system that supposedly was so bad gives an unfair advantage, so if others apply it the only defense is to apply it as well... but the free market apologists won't shut up anyway, in spite of the obvious cognitive dissonance.
There has long been a strong undercurrent of people who are for protectionism. Remember Ross Perot (many reading this were not even born in 1992 when he got popular as a third party presidential candidate) and his Giant sucking sound?
there are many people in America who don't believe in protectionism, but we lost this time.
True enough but really this boils down to we are just doing what they are doing. The reason they had it higher for longer was because for longer the situation was reversed, our cars were better. Now they have surpassed us and don't really need protection. We didn't before either, so it was a moot point. Now we do, so we do the same thing.
The point however is that the United States is supposed to operate under a different model than China. The reason to bring up the ways we act the same is then to find clarity in the contradiction.
This is essentially the same tension that runs through much of modern American discourse. It's never welfare if the beneficiary is a rich CEO at a corporation, only if it's a family in poverty. It's not like Chinese cars can't employ American workers just as Japanese and other foreign automakers do.
To my mind then, I think it's less about reciprocity and more about corporate welfare. Putting aside ICE automakers, there is also a very obvious individual who turned conspicuously political as of late who owes a great deal of his fortune to the expectation that his electric car company will one day rule the world. It would be quite embarrassing for even him if demand for his vehicles suddenly got demolished on his own turf. I would think he and others would be willing to spend a small fortune to keep the political needle tipped in their favor on this issue, the average consumer be damned.
At some level there is nothing wrong with such naked self interest. I just prefer we be honest about it, as only then can we really analyze it.
> but China is more protectionist than any other major economy, including recent changes in US policy.
Not true. China let Tesla set up shop in the backyard of their domestic EV industry, WITHOUT the mandatory by law 51% Chinese ownership, precisely so Tesla would light a fire under the asses of domestic players, forcing them to compete better with what was at the time, the pinnacle EV brand.
China is no longer beating us with protectionism but with innovation and manufacturing. People better wake up.
Which was a good strategy. It's not that far from older "Detroit strategies" that led to Chrysler, Dodge, Ford, and GM all competing for "world leader" from "The Motor City" in a past century.
If anything the shame is not that the Chinese pulled this off successfully, but that Detroit is still barely trying to compete in streamlining their bloated supply chains in light of EV competition; none of the US automakers are sharing upstream suppliers on batteries and all are scrambling in different directions on even some of the basics.
>TSMC didn't become the world's supreme chipmaker by a laissez-faire aproach from Taiwan.
>Same applies to Samsung. And oh-so-many Japanese tech ventures.
You're missing a lot of context with these analogies. TSMC and Samsung started off in the 1950-1980s as cheap manufacturers of low margin electronic commodities the west was actively trying to get rid of in the name of protecting the environment(semi industry is poisonous) and increasing shareholder value via cheap(cough, slave, cough) labour, while giving western consumers who had options of better paid jobs access to cheaper imported stuff. It was a win-win-win situation, kind-of.
But fast forward to today, now that TSMC and Samsung have become masters of cutting edge high margin manufacturing, and the west finds itself exposed to lack of said cutting edge manufacturing at home, they're starting to twist their arms to get the know-how and infrastructure that they missed out on back on-shore. Had the west know the table would turn like this they probably would have acted differently.
Same with cars. German OEMs like Mercedes that were the pinnacle of auto tech especially when it came to tings like safety and self driving/crash avoidance, but got greedy and were more than happy to outsource electronics and ECU development and manufacturing to the lowest bidder in the name of shareholder value, but over time they lost vertical integration and access to inhouse critical high end technologies that made them valuable over the competition. Now China used that outsourced electronics industry to develop its own electronic auto tech and its vertical integration supply chain to beat the Germans.
The highest margin item in an ICE car was always the engine at which the Germans were the best at, and China could not catch up. Fast forward to today, in an EV, the highest margin items are the battery, self driving stack and supporting AI silicon, almost none of which come from Europe, meaning German OEMs are losing out on innovations and profits big time, becoming only system integrators of US and Chinese sourced parts on top of which they slap a badge hoping the consumers will value it more than Chinese badges because "heritage and tradition". They are super fucked.
They say history repeats itself, and this EV market shift is a repeat. A remarkable past parallel occurred with US industrial quality experts and statisticians being ignored by the US auto industry in the 1970s, then being taken seriously by the Japanese auto makers who then sling shotted themselves past US auto quality in the 80s to probably 2010ish?
In this round of history repeating, 2020s US car maker management was also actively anti-collaboration and anti-expert within it's own domain. You can see commentary by Sandy Munro on US companies ignoring design and production efficiency details - outsourcing too much of their own supply chain, and being resistant to integration improvements. And similar occurrences of Chinese auto companies hiring US auto production experts who were being ignored by the US auto industry, then going on to to improve fit, finish and quality, while building organizations unafraid of vertical integration.
> The new US tariffs were an attempt to even the playing field.
That's a guess at the White House's thinking. They've been using every form of coercion in international relations, including economic (tariffs), military, and diplomatic. That's a factual basis for divining their reasoning.
Their words are not a factual basis - they can say anything and clearly will. Everyone who does those things provides justifications - Putin was helping oppressed Russians in Ukraine and stopping fascism, for example. Taking them at face value is not a serious analysis.
It's a good point but imo not really surprising when the President of the United States essentially threatened to invade Canada and Greenland.
This is classic multipolar politics, trade the two behemoths against each other so they don't roll over one day and just squish you. By alienating Canada and Europe we've handed China a great gift.
It's only getting started. Do you think Europe is going to use American networking equipment when America has shown that it will use its military against Europe? American grid technology?
Denmark ordered more in October. Canada talks a lot, but so far has done nothing concrete about reducing their order.
You would think they would urgently cancel and get Gripens and/or Rafales.
There are no other options. The F35 is the only gen5 fighter you can buy (Russia has one, but they can't make it and in any case Russia is invading Europe now and so not an option) , and as such it is going to be better than anything else you can get. Plus the cost of the F35 is similar or less than your other options.
The real question is what do those countries do when they have other options.
Wasn’t there a report in the last 10 years about China accounting for a huge portion of property sales in Canada? I thought I remembered seeing it was as high as 30% in some areas.
This is the outcome when your corporations bow down to wall Street. Tax payers money is just used to prop up their private profits and without exposing them to the actual competition. Short term profit seeking. Who foots the bill, the US tax payer who have to pay for the corporate profits and drive overpriced underperforming vehicles.
Protecting automakers can be considered a vital business for national security. This is not good for consumers, but relying on China for everything also carries many risks.
It's a balance. If a country is investing severely in a specific industry you can either tax them out of your swamp, counter invest in your industry or, realistically, do a mix.
It'd be difficult to compete with companies receiving large gov assistance without gov assistance and I find taxing them slightly safer than making it rain on specific people/companies.
